Congressional candidates Flisser, Latimer face off at candidate forum

The pair displayed civility, but had little common ground.

Agreeing to disagree  Latimer and Flisser aired their different views on a variety of subjects

BY DEBORAH SKOLNIK

On Thursday evening, a crowd gathered at the White Plains Public Library for an important event—one that may prove pivotal to deciding our next Congressperson. For one and a half hours, opponents Miriam Flisser, M.D., and Westchester County Executive George Latimer squared off in a candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Westchester County, answering wide-ranging questions.

Both rivals boast impressive credentials: Latimer is the current Westchester County Executive, and Flisser, a pediatrician, has variously served as Scarsdale’s fire commissioner, police commissioner, and mayor in the past. The candidates’ shared devotion to public service aside, however, they revealed themselves to quite dissimilar, voicing almost invariably differing opinions on matters of local, national, and global importance.

What follows are the candidates’ opening and closing statements, as accurately as a recording and transcript could capture them, as well as a list of questions posed to Flisser and Latimer, and synopses of the answers each gave.

Latimer opening statement: “There's a lot of reasons why you can vote for an individual in this particular case to send to the Congress of the United States. You can vote from the basis of the party affiliation that you have and they have, or vote because you have a sympatico ideology that seems to be very prominent, but I would posit that the person that you want to send to Washington has to be the person who understands these communities best [and] knows intimately the needs of the various jurisdictions, because they're not all the same. You have a range of communities, from Scarsdale, Rye, and Larchmont to Mount Vernon, Yonkers, North Bronx, Co-Op City, and you want to send somebody who's got a proven track record of accomplishing, because it'll not be easy to accomplish anything.

The House of Representatives is four hundred some-odd members, and it's divided over certain ideologies. I've proven [my skills] over the number of years I've worked in public office [as] state legislator, county legislative, now county executive. So I understand the level of work and the level of energy that it takes to get results, and that's really what this is about. This is not about performance art. This is not about how many times you can get on [unclear] and I assure you if you go to Washington, if you don't have the requisite skills and you're not prepared to be independent, you'll become a tool of the party leaders. I've proved that I can stand up in my party for things that I believe in regardless of what else was happening, and at the same time cooperate in my party and across party lines. So make those considerations as to who you think you should send to Washington.”

Flisser opening statement: “I'm very grateful to you for coming to hear us today. I'm a pediatrician. I have an office in Bronxville, New York, and that's where I work. I was born in Europe. My parents smuggled me out hidden under a mail truck and I came to the United States on a…ship. I first saw the Statue of Liberty from a…ship and even though I was a little girl, it affected me and it's always affected me whenever I see it…I am a tremendous patriot of the United States of America—it’s given me the opportunity to have an education and to follow a career in medicine.

In addition to that, I was the mayor of Scarsdale, and I was the police commissioner and the fire commissioner of Scarsdale. I'm motivated by gratitude, and I want to represent my constituents. I want to follow through the things that are most important to you. You deserve to be safe. You deserve to have schools that are responsible to parents. You deserve a secure border and you deserve a government that makes sensible use of your taxes.”

Question 1: Which infrastructure project in Congressional District 16 is your highest priority and how will you approach getting it accomplished?

Flisser named flooding. “This is because of my interest in Scarsdale, where I was able to arrange for two detention basins, which is the way that we control flooding,” she said. “Not only did these basins protect the neighbors and protect their homes, but they also protected the Bronx River, which was under what I would call ecological stress…The [basins] that I created are very beautiful.

Latimer cited multiple infrastructure issues, explaining that our Congressional district is too large and diverse to name just one. “If were in Co-op City, I'd look at the problems with the power plant system down there, the convector system, and I could see where the federal government needs to be a partner to put a significant amount of money in there that would matter,” he answered. He also cited issues with the city of Yonkers’s wastewater treatment system, the condition of our parkways, and the need for affordable housing.

Question 2: Does the federal government have a role in regulating online speech? If so, how would you address concerns about the First Amendment?

Latimer said yes, but it would be complicated to figure out who in the government should regulate it. “Free speech on the internet, where people express their opinions about how they think about things…is their right to express themselves. But when they move into areas where they misrepresent the truth and it's provable…then it becomes something that is negative to the society,” Latimer said. “Now the problem is who becomes the [arbiter]…If I think that the federal administration had reasonable people, I might say yes, but I could wind up with a tyrant as president of the United States, and I don't want them controlling free speech because they'll control all the free speech that opposes them. So I think it has to be done on case-by-case basis, and perhaps it would take court action in individual cases to define what levels of speech are free and protected and which ones go beyond that into an area that is not protected.”

Flisser fundamentally agreed with Latimer. “I hope that you are aware how rare free speech is in the world. Even our allies, countries like England and Canada, don't have protected free speech the way we do,” she said. “…Now, I don't believe that can be completely unregulated. For example, you're not allowed to falsely cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater…I do not believe that speech [should] be allowed as a weapon on the internet. It can be weaponized, it can be controlled by our…rivals…and it can harm children…children have to be protected. I think that's a huge issue.

Question 3: What campaign finance reforms, if any, would you advocate for if you were elected to Congress?

Flisser cited a New York State practice that she feels wastes taxpayers’ money. “Right now in New York State you can use a grant from [the] state which is funded by your tax money for campaign funds. So, you have to raise a certain amount of money [for your campaign], and then the state will meet that amount,” Flisser began. “You…can even use it for signs and other things that I think are really somewhat of a waste…I think that money for campaigns is perfectly acceptable, but I do not think that money that's taken from taxpayers should go into this, and I believe that the reason for this New York State law is because they want to guarantee that the folks who passed this law have money so they can be reelected.

Latimer told Flisser that the question posed was about finances running for Congress, not the New York State legislature. Then he pointed to the need for limits on overall campaign funding. “…I would like to see legislation that would limit the amount of money that you can spend in the campaign,” he said. “…It's not good for the democracy to have that much money being spent, and I would agree that I would prefer not to have public spending in the campaign per se…but at this point you can't do that unless and until you have legislation that passes Supreme Court scrutiny.”

Question 4: What Congressional action, if any, do you support concerning border security, immigration, asylum seekers, or paths to citizenship?

Latimer spoke about the border and the need for immigration court reform, while praising a recent bipartisan bill whose terms he agrees with. “We're heading in the right direction, and that bipartisan bill will tighten border security. I don't think you need a physical big wall from Brownsville over to Tijuana, but I do think you need more border security, more border control, [and] more high-tech ability to secure the border,” Latimer replied. “…That bill also has in it a revision of the asylum program, which is broken. …And then you had people who seeking asylum, and they wait two, three years for a judicial case to be heard. I suggested at the time…that they establish an immigration court here at the U.S. District courthouse in White Plains, and it fell on deaf ears…You [also] have to tighten up what is the basis for asylum…[and] you also need to be realistic and have a program for immigrant working, because there's a need for an immigrant workforce in this country.”

Flisser stressed the need to protect immigrant children and shared concerns about public safety. “…Right now there are three hundred thousand children that are lost in this country that have been brought in and child labor,” she said. “…Children that are brought in should be brought with a proper policy and proper procedure…I also am against the increase in crime that's been associated with increased immigration….although people will say that crime has not increased, perhaps it's reported crime that has not increased….”.

Congressional candidates  Latimer and Flisser post-forum

Question 5: What national gun legislation, if any, do you believe could garner bipartisan support in a closely divided congress?

Flisser emphasized the need to keep guns away from dangerous people, while protecting others’ rights to bear arms. “The most important thing…is to keep guns out of criminals’ hands. I believe that there is a Constitutional right [to bear arms]…I am against taking arms away from people who have the right to own them—they're not criminals, people who register them properly, take care of them properly. There are all sorts of regulations, and that's the kind of reasonable gun control law I would like to see.”

Latimer also advocated for background checks, while stressing that no one is trying to take away people’s guns. “…It’s a Second Amendment right to have right to bear arms…The question is whether or not [criminals]…should have the right to have arms and might decide some fine day to shoot up a school, or might decide to walk into a church and shoot people and kill them …That's the public policy issue. And the national answer to that is not just a generic sense that people should have guns and criminals shouldn't have guns. It's universal background checks that agreed upon by 95% of the people, including the majority of gun owners…”

Question 6: If elected to Congress, what policies, if any, will you support regarding reproductive healthcare?

Latimer would like to ensure that reproductive healthcare remains in the purview of each woman. “…There are people that want to restrict a woman's right to choose and there are people that want to exercise the right to choose and there's different theological bases for this. Religion A says you can't do it, shouldn't do it. Religion B says it's okay. I think in a society like this, you have to leave it to the individual to make that decision, and they should be able to consult with the medical profession.”

Flisser agrees with our state’s current policy, but has no wish to see it become a national law. “I believe that you must require a physician to be part of [abortion procedures]. I don't think that harms anyone. I think it helps. and it's the right way to do that,” Flisser said. “I myself have [cared for a woman who] was pregnant, the pregnancy was terminated because of severe danger to the mother's life, and I took that infant to the intensive care unit and cared for it with the most that I could give, so that the child would be able to know life. I am in favor of life. I think it's a wonderful thing, and I think we should continue with our New York policy that now we have in effect, and I'm hoping that we…won't have to go under federal rules, that are not something that I approve of in either direction.”

Question 7: In a closely divided House of Representatives, how would you work across the aisle to help pass legislation that represents the interests of CD 16?

Flisser spoke of the advantages of being neither a Democrat nor a Republican. “…I have never been a member of a political party…this makes me very useful for crossing the aisle. I know that I'm on the Republican ticket, but that's because they invited me,” Flisser responded. “I think it's important that we do have what I would call social interactions with each other. I don't understand this whole thing about fighting and yelling at each other. I’m not like that…I'm [for] handling [things] in an educated, human way, the way it was in past…”

Latimer cited his political experience as proof that he can successfully accomplish the task. “…I've been in Albany, so I've dealt with this [and] dealt with it in White Plains,” Latimer said. “I chaired the Westchester County Board of legislators for twenty-five years …before I became [county] executive…the first, most important thing is that you treat people across the aisle with respect, that you begin the process by talking between Republicans and Democrats even if you don't agree on an end product, but you keep the personal relationship. I was able to do that in New York State Senate as a Democrat- and Republican-run chamber as well as a Democrat in the State Assembly in the majority chamber. Republicans came on my bills, I have [come on] Republican bills…I don't let disagreements get in the way of our ability to do things…”

Question 8: What steps should Congress take to bolster our country's ability to withstand catastrophic weather events, and what measures would you particularly favor for Westchester County?

Latimer focused on reducing reliance on fossil fuels.”…I've shown already a great concern about environmental issues through my tenure as county executive,” he said. “We electrified the bus fleet…we aggressively expanded recycling,” he added. “In terms of Washington's situation, we need to work on making renewable energy more affordable…If we want to see more electric cars rather than traditional gas engine cars, we have to work to make the infrastructure better. We've done that in Westchester County with more electric vehicle charging stations. But the question is about catastrophic events. We are hearing from the scientific community that those catastrophic events are happening because of global warming…if I hear informed information and I ignore it, then in thirty or forty years they'll look back and say, ‘What did you do in the twenties?’”

Flisser thinks it’s premature to make a widespread push towards electric vehicles. “I'm not a client alarmist. I think that these new engines… re not at a stage where they can be used properly. They can't be supported, and it's way too early to take away our cars…” she said. “I think that we should have alternative ways of traveling, such as excellent public transportation, et cetera…I don't believe that these alternative methods are better, more efficient, or even safe. I think that ittakes time and science to produce, and we're not ready for that.

Latimer used one of the rebuttals granted to the candidates to address Flisser’s contentions. “First of all, there's no proposal to take away your cars…It's a strawman argument,” he said. “It is foolish to deny that there's climate change….nd if we ignore it and we say, well, I don't think we're ready yet for that. We're playing into the do-nothing-ism that will create a climate catastrophe…”

Question 9: What do you see as the greatest national security threat to the United States and what role does Congress have in addressing that threat?

Flisser cited our need to preserve our position as the world’s dominant power. “…We cannot be secondary to other countries, because we are a democracy, a constitutional Republic. We have to be the world leaders,” she began. “…We must make sure that we have the proper military force and fuel and everything necessary to protect ourselves and our allies, because if we abandon them, we will be next. I promise. So I think that that's really the major issue for us on the international scene, that we must maintain the positions that we had because we are right. When we go to another country for whatever reason, we always leave it better, not worse…We should be wonderful agents of democracy and a better quality of life for the people around us and not cede that…”

Latimer emphasized the need to stand up to tyrants, and to support Israel.
”We shouldn't abandon Ukraine then and turn it over to Vladimir Putin. And if we turn Ukraine over, we're not showing strength, we're showing weakness,” he responded. “We're telling Scandinavia and Eastern European countries that America won't stand behind you [and] when we tell NATO countries that if you don't pay, we're not going to protect you and that the Russian bear can start to move on you…What are we telling South Korea about our willingness to stand up to protect South Korea? What about our willingness to do anything on Taiwan?…and it's out of that experience that I also feel we have to defend the democracy of Israel. It doesn't mean we rubber stamp every policy of Israel, but it does mean that they are a democracy in the Middle East and in the same way that we stand by Ukraine, we should stand by Israel…and if we don't stand up and if we don't [spend] the money necessary, then we have a long, dark night…”

Question 10: What measures, if any, would you propose to ensure sufficient funding for Social Security for the long term?
Latimer discussed changing tax laws to increase funds for the middle class, which in turn could delay the point at which Social Security needs critical help. “My understanding is that the Social Security fund [will be] compromised in roughly ten years…” Latimer said. “The restructuring of the fund is most likely going to be something that's discussed at the same time that we will be discussing the reauthorization of the Trump tax cuts, the Trump tax cuts, which also got rid of the SALT [state and local] tax deduction, which is a terrible mistake…Trump tax cuts were for five years targeted towards the wealthiest of Americans… [We should consider] restructuring those tax cuts to reach the middle class, and seeing if there's resources within that revenue to be able to start the process of protecting the Social Security fund for a longer period of time…If we can take the ten-year deadline and turn it into a twenty-five year deadline, knowing that some future of American decision-makers will have to figure out financially what happens when we get to year twenty-five or thirty [it would be good]…
Flisser focused on the food insecurity that often accompanies poverty, as well as how immigrants further sap Social Security funds. “Last week at the hospital, I certified the process that we have to be sure that our patrons have no need for food…There were two groups that were most likely to have food insufficiency, and one was pregnant women with small children. The other one…[is] people over 65….[they] are receiving Social Security and yet they cannot manage their food needs with the funds that they have…So what I'm trying to say is, of course, we have to protect our seniors and they should not be the ones at risk. And therefore I do support reworking this [Social Security] in any way. And I do point out that allowing people to come into the country who have not contributed to this is a dangerous thing, because the numbers are unsustainable and we will not be able to do it…”

Question 11: The tax cut enacted in 2017 will expire soon. Which of those provisions would you renew and or allowed to expire and why?

Flisser focused on the SALT tax cap. “… When the tax cut [of 2017] was put in, a cap was placed on that. The cap meant that each person would get ten thousand dollars, twenty-five thousand if you married…this cap is set to expire with the tax cut,” Flisser said. “It would be a tremendous federal issue because of the amount of money that the federal government needs to avoid further national debt…It takes a tremendous amount of work for both sides of the aisle to do this, but certainly the business on the tax cap is something that's very important for us to review.”

Latimer expressed his viewpoint on the SALT tax cap as well. “I would favor full restoration of the SALT deduction. I don't know if that's possible given the…Senate, you have to take a hard look at the overall Trump tax cuts, and it was passed by Donald Trump and Republican controls of the House and the Senate…and it was done in a way to be punitive because it generally affected Blue states to the greater extent. The Trump tax cuts benefit upper-end wage earners or wealth earners…by reducing their tax rates down to certain level…What you need to do is shift the tax cuts down the [middle class]…”

Question 12: Is the Affordable Care Act effective in this current form? If so, why? If not, what improvements can be made?

Latimer talked about a review of the act’s effectiveness, and the need to push for lower drug costs. “…When I hear the other side talking about ‘We want to get rid of it and we're going to replace it with something,’ the most recent phrase I heard is, ‘I have a concept of an idea…’ I do think that there needs to be a hard review of it [the act] to determine …whether all the provisions of that law are effective, and if it can be enhanced…but obviously it depends on the available money…because that program costs the federal government money to be able to implement. I also think it's very important that the federal government [also] uses its leverage…to negotiate for lower prices for the variety of different pharmaceuticals that people need in advancing age…”

Flisser asserted the healthcare system is broken. “Just like the failure of immigration policy, and what I would call our international policies…there's a failure in the healthcare policy, too. It has to be reworked. I do not believe in working towards a single payer. I think we should have freedom and choose the kind of policies that we want, and I think our employers should have freedom to choose policies for us as well. Plus there’s the bureaucracy… Two things that doctors spend there time on is we have to fulfill the bureaucratic billing process…[and to] cover ourselves against the outside chance that there will be a lawsuit. And so what we do is we raise the cost of medical care enormously…”

Question 13: Should Congress Institute changes to the Supreme Court, such as increasing the number of justices—sometimes referred to as court packing—enacting term limits, or legislatively imposing ethical standards? Why or why not?

Flisser is against it. “I do not think that Congress should pack the court…[it] the has to be independent of being manipulated by outside political influences,” she asserted. “That’s why I like the positions that the folks have there, where they're guaranteed of those positions no matter how they go…I want to maintain separation of powers and I certainly don't believe in packing the court or affecting the Supreme Court justices so they're not free to make their decisions.

Latimer is also against court packing. “I think the people who propose that hope that there'd be a change in the construct of the court, but who's the president, who's the Senate majority? You might wind up with more judges that you don't like…however, there are ethical standards that need to be adopted and enforced for the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch…I know the court has ruled that the president is immune from prosecution. I don't think that's true. It depends on what you did…and I do think there should be limits to the length of terms of a Supreme Court judge. They [would be] eligible for reappointment….I don't think that that compromises their independence…I think that would probably give the opportunity for there to be a reasonable turnover…”

Question 14: Is affordable housing a federal, state, or local issue to regulate? What do you think is the cause of our current housing issue?

Latimer talked about the need to further incentivize builders. “…It's not about regulation. It's about incentivizing,” he replied.”The power in New York state resides with the local government for local zoning authority…It belongs to each of the different municipalities under the New York State law…so, what we do in New York State is that the county and the state government and the federal government's been [involved, but not as as much]…[is] we help incentivize the building of affordable housing…the county has allocated more money in my tenure than any prior administration, and we have the results to prove it—in round numbers twenty-five hundred affordable units…[there are] 4,000 in the pipeline…the federal government's role, in my judgment, is to financially help incentivize it…”

Flisser spoke of the need to defend local zoning ordinances. “The most important thing is to preserve our local zoning. That is a critical thing. I know because I was a mayor and I had to fight,” she said. “I had to fight a plan to build…an apartment building over train tracks in Scarsdale…And that's because I was able to help enforce and respect the local zoning board laws…I don't like this idea of putting in gigantic housing that is not part of our landscape right next to the train station so that people can travel in and out. I don't feel that that's part of the single family lives that we have here, and I'm against that. So that's what I want to preserve.”

Question 14: What role should the federal government play in public education and what changes, if any, do you support?

Flisser’s answer centered around the need to support higher education for underserved populations. “…I was recently learning about the historically black universities and colleges in America. They received some grants from the federal government, and that's the same as invested money…[those] colleges have the greatest percentage of first-time [college students] in a family, people going for higher education…and so they need more support than families that already have been through this process…We should support areas and places and programs where kids can start. The black universities are a great example of this, and I would continue to spend federal money on this.”

Latimer focused on the cost of college. “The federal government has a positive role to play in terms of higher education. The cost of college now has become nearly impossible for average families,” he said. “…I think [the federal government should also be] trying to use their resources to help make sure that colleges are playing fair in the way that they handle financing of these things. Because you make it easy for people to get student loans, and then they take the loans and go to college, and then [they have a] tremendous financial burden on their back when they start their life off…I [also] don't believe you use government to impose your values on other people…that's not freedom of thought and freedom of speech….it's very important that we make sure that under the guise of freedom, it's not a freedom that denies other people’s rights.”

Question 16: If elected, what congressional committee do you hope to serve on and why?

Latimer would like to work on transportation systems. “Generally members of Congress serve on two committees. It'll depend on if you're the minority or the majority. And it also depends on how many other people from your region are going to want to be on which committee,” he said. “If you’re a freshman, you ain't getting [a spot on] the appropriation [committee], you ain't getting ways and means. I think a realistic ask would be transportation infrastructure…I might have the juice to be able to help Co-Op City on the things I just talked about, or I might be able to help Mamaroneck move on some of that flooding situation…What happens is leadership, at least in my party, will try to accommodate the first ask and then they'll give you the other committee…”

Flisser: “The ones that interest me the most are science and technology. I do have a doctorate, and I do understand that sort of sort of thing. And I don't think anybody would oppose putting me on a committee like that…[I am] happy to serve in any way.

Closing statements

Latimer: Thank you to the League of Women Voters and those in the audience. Let me thank Dr. Flisser. I have great respect for her medical career. I have respect for her service in Scarsdale as an elected official. And in this debate I think we've shared our ideas. There's some things we agree upon. Don't pack the court. There's some things we disagree upon—climate change and universal background checks. But that's all within the proper dialogue of democracy. And so I appreciate Dr. Flisser’s presence here. Obviously they had a primary earlier this year. Perhaps that was not quite the same experience….

“I did not desire as a Westchester County executive to go to Congress at this stage of my life. Circumstances in my political party urged me to make this race. And the incumbent who Dr. Flisser ran against two years ago, and I ran against in the spring, I felt was not properly representing this district. So why do I run? Not because I want to get on a plane and go to Washington three days a week. I'm very satisfied walking the dog first thing of the day in my own hometown. I do believe we're going for very dangerous and difficult time…If I go to Washington, I won’t go as a know it all, but I obviously know what I know, and I'm prepared to negotiate and work across the aisle and show respect to Republicans and conservatives. Even if I disagree with them, to still listen to them, talk to them. And if we can find common ground in immigration, on floodingm on these things, then will be a productive use of my time, whether it's two years or any other length of time. And if it doesn't turn out that I'm elected, then I've been given a great gift by the people of Westchester. You sent me to my home council all those years ago. You sent me to White Plains as a legislator. You sent me to Albany and both housesm and sent me back to White Plains to run the county. And I've tried to show every day in public office [my deep committment].

Flisser: “I have to say thank you for the fairness of the questions and the way we handled it. And we may notice that [Latimer and I weren’t hostile to each other]. We haven't done that because this is the way it should be done. Everyone gets to say what they think. Everyone gets vote, the votes are properly vetted, everything is done right. The voting, everything is done right…the proper procedures in place. And I think that's really the most important thing about our country. It has to be run right because its is in the right place…Please vote for me. Thank you.